http://box3.squeak.org:8624
http://box3.squeak.org:8624/error This is the next iteration of the squeak.org image. It's getting closer to completion, I think. There is a nascent error message. (If anyone is wondering about attribution for that image, I looked at the site it came from [1] and I do not see how it is supposed to be attributed. AFAICT, the maker has not indicated who they are or how they want to be attributed.). The image is running on box3, not box4, because I get this lovely error: chriscunnington@squeak-box4:~$ ioLoadModule(/home/chriscunnington/coglinux/lib/squeak/4.0-2640/libcrypto.so): /home/chriscunnington/coglinux/lib/squeak/4.0-2640/libcrypto.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64 Something 32 is not playing well with something 64. Perhaps I need to install a 32-bit version of libcrypto.so on box4? In any event, this squeak.org image cannot be deployed on box4 behind a server until it has been decided what server (Apache or nginx) will be used. Once I am informed what the methodology for deploying an image on box4 has been decided upon, I'll resume working on this. As box3 is of limited capacity and doesn't need to be overburdened by this squeak.org image for a long period of time, I'll take this down tomorrow. Chris [1] http://www.officialpsds.com/Hole-in-Paper-3-PSD50497.html |
On 24-01-2013, at 10:10 AM, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: > http://box3.squeak.org:8624 I rather like it. Good stuff. Now we collectively need to build out some decent content to justify it. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Advanced design: Upper management doesn't understand it. |
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
I just visited the site and I want to say that it looks really nice. This is great work! On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: http://box3.squeak.org:8624 |
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On 24 January 2013 18:10, Chris Cunnington
<[hidden email]> wrote: > http://box3.squeak.org:8624 > http://box3.squeak.org:8624/error > > This is the next iteration of the squeak.org image. It's getting closer to > completion, I think. Nice clean look! Also, you were quite right about choosing the background: I do indeed get a little thrill every time I see it. frank |
Suggestion:
Is there any way to get the www site to display in full form on a mobile device? I often find it helpful to display www sites on iPhone just as they would look on a regular browser, it is disconcerting for a user to be forced to view only with mobile format and no option. Ken, from my iPhone On 2013-01-24, at 11:46, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 24 January 2013 18:10, Chris Cunnington > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> http://box3.squeak.org:8624 >> http://box3.squeak.org:8624/error >> >> This is the next iteration of the squeak.org image. It's getting closer to >> completion, I think. > > Nice clean look! Also, you were quite right about choosing the > background: I do indeed get a little thrill every time I see it. > > frank > |
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On 24.01.2013, at 10:10, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
http://box3.squeak.org:8624/error It's great that you adopted my idea for the error page look. But it does not yet have that "ripped-open" feel, because in your version the inner shadows are missing, and the outer ones do not look smooth enough. Here are both for comparison again: IMHO the error page should not have any of the frames but just a plain background and the hole in the middle (the nav bar is fine on top). And maybe 260 KBytes for an error image is a bit much? Mine is 20 KByte. I'm old-fashioned I guess, a quarter mega byte seems large to me ;) As for proper attribution, a small-print footer in the lower right corner should suffice (e.g. "graphic based on artwork by AMENAZAGFX"). - Bert - PS: Perhaps proving my point above, the first version of this email bounced due to excessive size. Had to rescale your image, and save as jpeg. |
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 2013-01-24 2:32 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> Suggestion: > Is there any way to get the www site to display in full form on a mobile device? I often find it helpful to display www sites on iPhone just as they would look on a regular browser, it is disconcerting for a user to be forced to view only with mobile format and no option. > > Ken, > from my iPhone Mmm, I imagine there's a way. But it's not readily available. The Responsive Design philosophy is to have a bendy, flexible site that pours itself into the shape of the screen. The regular page would be kind of small wouldn't it? Chris |
The browser on iPhone normally allows pinch zoom and scroll around easily so it usually works pretty good with a full site unless the site tries to be overly smart about it talking to a mobile device and to my mind it is usually in a negative direction.
If only it had a link to the full site, and then not do anything special for mobile, it would be good on iPhone I think. Ken, from my iPhone On 2013-01-24, at 12:36, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2013-01-24 2:32 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> Suggestion: >> Is there any way to get the www site to display in full form on a mobile device? I often find it helpful to display www sites on iPhone just as they would look on a regular browser, it is disconcerting for a user to be forced to view only with mobile format and no option. >> >> Ken, >> from my iPhone > Mmm, I imagine there's a way. But it's not readily available. The Responsive Design philosophy is to have a bendy, flexible site that pours itself into the shape of the screen. The regular page would be kind of small wouldn't it? > > Chris > > |
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 2013-01-24 2:33 PM, Bert Freudenberg
wrote:
On 24.01.2013, at 10:10, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:Inner shadows. OK. I think I mocked up a version, when you'd created a complete gif. I'll go back and get yours. 260 Kbytes? I didn't notice. I'll use yours. And I'll remove some of the framing. OK. AMENAZAGFX it is.
If there is credit for the site being decent, and not my usual half-baked job, it goes to Bert. Posts like this have tempered the process to make better a product. But I'd be lying if I said they didn't take a little getting used to. :p Chris |
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 2013-01-24 2:44 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> The browser on iPhone normally allows pinch zoom and scroll around easily so it usually works pretty good with a full site unless the site tries to be overly smart about it talking to a mobile device and to my mind it is usually in a negative direction. > If only it had a link to the full site, and then not do anything special for mobile, it would be good on iPhone I think. > > Ken, > from my iPhone > Let me think about how that might work. And how you might be presented with the option. Chris |
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 2013-01-24 2:33 PM, Bert Freudenberg
wrote:
On 24.01.2013, at 10:10, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:http://box3.squeak.org:8624/error I've changed the gif. And it's much smaller. I'll pull out the frames and background colors in the next rev. Chris |
On 24 January 2013 20:05, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm far from a graphics person, but might a PNG not better preserve the flat colours in the Browser? At the moment there are rather visible compression artifacts, both in the green parts and especially so in the buttons.
frank
|
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On 24.01.2013, at 12:05, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
When I'm back home next week I could try and make this with your background color, which might be an even nicer effect than white. I like your color scheme better :) But I don't have the source file on my laptop with me right now. - Bert - |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On 2013-01-24 3:18 PM, Frank Shearar
wrote:
On 24 January 2013 20:05, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: I see what you mean. Well, Bert says he'll make another one next week. Chris |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On 24.01.2013, at 12:18, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: On 24 January 2013 20:05, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: Yes, this is all for saving space. On my screen I only see the compression artifacts when I zoom into the image. Maybe on the next iteration I should use a higher quality level for the JPG, but I don't think we can get the file size down as much with a PNG, because of all the smooth shadow gradients. - Bert - |
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 2013-01-24 3:31 PM, Bert Freudenberg
wrote:
Super. No rush. I don't imagine I'll do another rev for about two weeks. Thanks, Chris |
On 24.01.2013, at 12:35, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2013-01-24 3:31 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote: >> >> When I'm back home next week I could try and make this with your background color, which might be an even nicer effect than white. I like your color scheme better :) But I don't have the source file on my laptop with me right now. >> >> - Bert - >> >> >> > Super. No rush. I don't imagine I'll do another rev for about two weeks. > > Thanks, > Chris In that, maybe you can actually hook it up :) http://box3.squeak.org:8624/foo - Bert - |
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On 24/01/13 1:10 PM, Chris Cunnington wrote:
> http://box3.squeak.org:8624 Is it just me, or does it break normal expectations to have items on the top navbar take you to an external site? Similarly, I always get surprised when a "Contact" page pops up my email program, instead of a page with contact info (perhaps with a link that says "email"). It's especially jarring to have this happen on the top navbar. |
Am 24.01.2013 um 23:36 schrieb Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]>:
> On 24/01/13 1:10 PM, Chris Cunnington wrote: >> http://box3.squeak.org:8624 > > Is it just me, or does it break normal expectations to have items on the top navbar take you to an external site? > > Similarly, I always get surprised when a "Contact" page pops up my email program, instead of a page with contact info (perhaps with a link that says "email"). It's especially jarring to have this happen on the top navbar. ACK for both. Best -Tobias |
On 2013-01-25 3:08 AM, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Am 24.01.2013 um 23:36 schrieb Yanni Chiu <[hidden email]>: > >> On 24/01/13 1:10 PM, Chris Cunnington wrote: >>> http://box3.squeak.org:8624 >> Is it just me, or does it break normal expectations to have items on the top navbar take you to an external site? >> >> Similarly, I always get surprised when a "Contact" page pops up my email program, instead of a page with contact info (perhaps with a link that says "email"). It's especially jarring to have this happen on the top navbar. > ACK for both. > > Best > -Tobias link to the Development page. I'll give Contact it's own page. All links from the menu bar will result in a page. Chris |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |